I’ve been looking for a new job as a software developer. The huge majority of job listings I see in my area are hybrid or remote. I just had an introductory phone call with Vizio (which didn’t specify the location type in the job listing). The recruiter told me that the job was fully on-site, which I told her was a deal breaker for me.
It makes me wonder how many other people back out after hearing that the job is on-site. And it makes me wonder why this wasn’t specified in the job description. I assume most people only want hybrid or remote jobs these days, right?
Anyways I was just wondering how many of you guys apply for on-site IT jobs? Hybrid is so much better, I don’t know why people would apply for on-site jobs unless they have no other options.
I’d consider one, but it’d have to pay considerably more. Like, 50% or more above what I’d otherwise expect for a fully remote position, and it would have to be an easy commute.
In most cases it’s adding 20-30% to the length of the work day when the commute is included, plus costs of transportation itself. Plus the general inconvenience and the fact that it’s almost always going to mean a more toxic culture. But if the pay and benefits were absolutely fantastic, I’d consider it, at least short-term.
And the commute is considered working hours. An hour commute means I’m in the office 9-3. With a lunch break.
I think in Germany that’s part of the labour code: the clock runs the entirety of the time you’ve left the house on their instruction.
Doesn’t that encourage urban sprawl?
Another user was demanding 4x salary for in office, I would consider a 20% pay bump per in office day a reasonable request that likely results in a remote contract. It’s essentially saying it will cost you double to make me come in for that day.